The comment is from Taibbi's original column here.
Btw Popular Mechanics doesn't address the molten metal found in large quantity, or many other details, and the editor of PM is Ben Chertoff, cousin of Mike Chertoff, Director of Homeland Security. Guess that could be considered a conflict of interest. Also, they lost many of their contributors and editors when they started publishing this 9-11 "debunking," but I'm sure common sense tells you that's just all coincidence. And common sense also tells us to ignore all other sources of information.
In case you're wondering, I AM NOT Michael Chertoff's cousin. IF we are related, it's so distant I can't figure out how. Nevertheless, I've never talked to him, never met him and nobody I know in my family has ever met him.
I assume that common sense tells you that he must be lying....
http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm
http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/2006/05/ben-chertoff-michael-chertoff.html
Benjamin's mother in Pelham, New York, however, was more willing to talk. Asked if Benjamin was related to the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Judy said, "Yes, of course, he is a cousin."
And so here we are talking about Chertoff, instead of the research done by Thomson, Griffin, Tarpley, Zwicker, Jones, et al., who don't have any connections to the Bush administration. Bravo, bon détournement.
Here's a tip: Perhaps a little more rigourous examination of one's sources might be in order if you're going to convince anyone of this stuff.
Anyway, you're the one who started talking about Chertoff's family, not me. If you're going to complain about veering off course, perhaps you should make more of an effort to stay on the course yourself.
Regardless, it's interesting how people who can't challenge the actual research done by Popular Mechanics try to impugn it by "attacking" one of the researchers.
But hey, if you'd rather believe hearsay via a third-hand source regarding what his mother may or may not have said than the guy himself, I think perhaps it may be useless to appeal to your common sense.
Regardless, as your link so rightly pointed out, "The piece needs to be judged on its contents, not the surname of one of those involved."
But, um, judging it on its merits doesn't work out so well for the conspiracists, so never mind.
Look, I have no interest in re-examining the so-called "research" of your stable of conspiracy theorists for the 857th time. Consider it considered and soundly rejected; I have found none of it convincing in the slightest, and much of it so astonishingly ignorant and unsupported that it really ought to be embarrassing for its proponents. But go ahead, call me a Bush apologist because I don't agree with you. Very effective rhetorical tool, that.
There's so much information available at sites like 9-11 blogger have tons of information from a variety of academic and professional sources.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
I've listed multiple sources, including those "opposed," and scholars, and you've used one which has deep ties to the DoD, and you're calling my argument weak?
That to me is the epitomy of intellectual dishonesty.
You. Have. Made. No. Arguments. Here.
Maybe you actually have an argument. I have no way of knowing that. You've simply linked to a handful of websites that can't even agree amongst themselves about What Really Happened and that spend more time debunking and deconstructing each other than they do trying to present a coherent narrative supported by solid evidence of whatever they feel might actually have happened on That Day. Oh, and besides that, you've insulted me, Jerome and everyone else on the planet who might have the gall "intellectual dishonesty" to disagree with you.
Call me as many names as you want, but you're not strengthening your "case" one iota; in fact, thus far you haven't made a case for yourself at all, and calling me all the names in the world isn't going to add up to a coherent argument.
But sure, let's keep talking about me and all the things you think I am, rather than anything of substance.
You should take a look at the New User Guide on the subject of ratings, where it's clearly explained that troll ratings are not to be used to express disagreement with another's opinions.
The rating has been wiped. Please don't abuse ratings again. When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
I think that troll rating was deserved. Sorry you disagree.
